Bible passage help

[southsideirish]

If anyone would please be kind enough to help me out I would be greatly appreciated. A friend of mine is a Jehovah's WItness, I was brought up Catholic but am no longer part of any denomination but I am still Christian. I am having problems with a passage.

 

As a Catholic we were taught the Bible passage John 1:1 as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", but my friend reads the passage in his translation of the Bible as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

 

Which translation is the correct one and why? I know that Jehovah's witnesses have changed many things in the Bible to make it seem as though Jesus was not God in the flesh, however he and they claim that their translation is the correct one. I can not say that he is incorrect because I honestly don't know.

 

I appreciate any help I can get with this subject. Thank you all very much.

[SuperSteve]

Jesus is not God, he is the son of God. I would think your translation is right, because you would never see 'a God' in the Bible. There is only one God, that would kind of f*** with that.

[southsideirish]

Jesus is not God, he is the son of God. I would think your translation is right, because you would never see 'a God' in the Bible. There is only one God, that would kind of f*** with that.

Are you Christian or Catholic Steve? As a Catholic I was brought up that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same, they create the Holy Trinity or Godhead as you will. Jesus is God in the flesh. The Holy Spirit is God in the spirit form. To me Jesus is not only the son of God, but also God in the flesh. I hope that this makes sense as I confuse my friend all the time on my belief.

 

Also, as you can see in the passage I have taken from their Bible, it does not capitalize the last god. There can be other gods that people worship and Jesus may be seen as a god that people worship. To them there is only God, and they don't believe Jesus was God in the flesh. So it is not saying that there is more than one God, but that there are many gods.

 

Again I hope this makes sense as sometimes I have trouble explaining my beliefs. Thank you for your response though Steve.

[Soxy]

First of all, this is one of the latest gospels, and probably the most gnostic. If you don't know what that word means, it means that they took a lot of ideals from the Greco-Roman tradition that there was a spark of divinity from withing. Consequently a LOT of more conservative sects have problems with this gospel and its gnostic influence. It's interesting, but John is written later, and lacks the tight structure of the other Gospels (count how many times Jesus goes to Jerusalem in the other 3 and then in John....). Basically, it's a different gospel entirely.

 

Right, so I have my scholarly Bible (NRSV) here: John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

Here is the footnote: The Word (Greek: logos) of God is more than speech; it is God in action, creating, revealing, redeeming, Jesus is this Word. He was eternal, personal, divine, Was, not "BECAME" (my note: notice that only Matt and Luke have birth narratives, the earliest Gospel also skips this--Mark).

 

So, basically it might come down to a docternal issue. There are a million different types of Christianity--and many of them don't believe the same thing.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I see Soxy on here and I'm sure she can put you straight.

 

If you want my penny-ante theologizing, I think both of those translations are correct interpretations. In that one sentence, with one word – 'Logos' – John linked the God of the Old Testament with God in the person of Jesus. The Word was God and the Word was with God. And the Word (Jesus) was part of the plan from the beginning.

 

And Steve, that verse ggets at the heart of it. For Christians Jesus is God in the person of the Son. Fully human yet entirely divine, yada yada, Father, Son, and Spirit are all faces of the tripartate Christian God.

 

Makes your head swim. No wonder priests drink during mass.

[southsideirish]

First of all, this is one of the latest gospels, and probably the most gnostic. If you don't know what that word means, it means that they took a lot of ideals from the Greco-Roman tradition that there was a spark of divinity from withing. Consequently a LOT of more conservative sects have problems with this gospel and its gnostic influence. It's interesting, but John is written later, and lacks the tight structure of the other Gospels (count how many times Jesus goes to Jerusalem in the other 3 and then in John....). Basically, it's a different gospel entirely.

 

Right, so I have my scholarly Bible (NRSV) here: John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the  Word was God.

 

Here is the footnote: The Word (Greek: logos) of God is more than speech; it is God in action, creating, revealing, redeeming, Jesus is this Word. He was eternal, personal, divine, Was, not "BECAME" (my note: notice that only Matt and Luke have birth narratives, the earliest Gospel also skips this--Mark).

 

So, basically it might come down to a docternal issue. There are a million different types of Christianity--and none of them believe the same thing.

Actually, my friend and all Jehovah's Witnesses use a different translation of the Bible. It is their own translation called the New World Testament. There is many changes in their version, that they state are teh real translations, that make it seem Jesus was not God in the flesh.

[Soxy]

Of course, talking right and wrong here, I'm speaking only in terms of the Scholarly accepted cannon. Whether that is thorough, or the only divinely inspired word of God is another issue....

[FlaSoxxJim]

Dang, I knew you were going to beat me to it Soxy.

[southsideirish]

Of course, talking right and wrong here, I'm speaking only in terms of the Scholarly accepted cannon. Whether that is thorough, or the only divinely inspired word of God is another issue....

How can I ever be sure of the correct translations on certain passages then? I mean if their translations are correct then wouldn't that doom me?

[southsideirish]

Of course, talking right and wrong here, I'm speaking only in terms of the Scholarly accepted cannon. Whether that is thorough, or the only divinely inspired word of God is another issue....

By the way ChiSoxy, I really appreciate your help. I am not questioning your knowledge or anything. I am just seeking knowledge and I want to know what truth is. I am glad you are taking the time to help me.

[Soxy]

Actually, my friend and all Jehovah's Witnesses use a different translation of the Bible. It is their own translation called the New World Testament. There is many changes in their version, that they state are teh real translations, that make it seem Jesus was not God in the flesh.

Well, then I would suggest a spirited debate on why it reads a god as opposed to God. I imagine there are some pretty heavy theological implications there--that I cannot answer. Not being a Jehovah's witness (hm, or Christian) I do not know why it is theologically significant that it read a god. But, I would encourage you to ask why it says that, not argue which is "right."

[Soxy]

Dang, I knew you were going to beat me to it Soxy.

Evil, evil, evil cackle.

[southsideirish]

Well, then I would suggest a spirited debate on why it reads a god as opposed to God. I imagine there are some pretty heavy theological implications there--that I cannot answer. Not being a Jehovah's witness (hm, or Christian) I do not know why it is theologically significant that it read a god. But, I would encourage you to ask why it says that, not argue which is "right."

Oh that is what I am asking. I am asking which is right. I am not arguing over who is right as I really don't know. I just want to make sure that I am not following false statements or lies. I want to make sure I am following truth. You are helping me a great deal and I thank you. I appreciate it. What religion are you if you don't mind me asking?

 

I can tell you this, Jehovah's Witnesses are basing their religion on Jesus not being God in the flesh. Catholic's and most Christians believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. If you make that statement the word was a god, then it kind of states that Jesus was not God in the flesh, but rather just a god. Now if you read it the other way it clearly would state that Jesus would be God in the flesh. Does "logos" specifically translate to "God" or can it mean "a god" or can it mean either based on the context?

[Soxy]

How can I ever be sure of the correct translations on certain passages then? I mean if their translations are correct then wouldn't that doom me?

Okay, sorry smart ass answer here: How can you be sure of translations? Learn Greek!

 

Other than that--get a reputable translation. I recommend New Standard Revised Version. I use the Oxford version.

 

The other thing about translations is that all too often (even in modern ones) there can be a political slant to them--the NRSV is pretty good about keeping that out. I don't know who translates the Jehovah's witness stuff. Really though, I bet this one comes down to a docterine issue....

[Soxy]

Oh that is what I am asking. I am asking which is right. I am not arguing over who is right as I really don't know. I just want to make sure that I am not following false statements or lies. I want to make sure I am following truth. You are helping me a great deal and I thank you. I appreciate it. What religion are you if you don't mind me asking?

I'm a Buddhist.

 

But here's the hitch about the Jehovah's Witness bible--if they say it was Divinely Inspired--and that translation was--how do we know it's not? There's really no way to "know" we're following the truth. You just trust and go with it; or you don't.

 

And ultimately, how do we know the Books of the Bible are really the ones that best capture the message of Jesus as opposed to the ideals of the people putting them in the canon?

 

I would read the whole book of John--and then I would read the book of Mark. Both at the same time. Completely different views of Jesus. Read them--there are plenty of contrasting views on Jesus that will blow your mind more than this. You'll find Truth in the whole book more than in one verse...

[southsideirish]

I'm a Buddhist.

 

But here's the hitch about the Jehovah's Witness bible--if they say it was Divinely Inspired--and that translation was--how do we know it's not? There's really no way to "know" we're following the truth. You just trust and go with it; or you don't.

 

And ultimately, how do we know the Books of the Bible are really the ones that best capture the message of Jesus as opposed to the ideals of the people putting them in the canon?

 

I would read the whole book of John--and then I would read the book of Mark. Both at the same time. Completely different views of Jesus. Read them--there are plenty of contrasting views on Jesus that will blow your mind more than this. You'll find Truth in the whole book more than in one verse...

Thank you very much. I am not sure that they claim it was divinely written. I think they claim that thiers is the best translated. Somone in the late 19th century translated it to his liking. I can't remember names or that. You are very intellgent on this subject, how did you become a Buddhist?

[FlaSoxxJim]

FZ had it right -'People, we is not wrapped tight.'

 

Nerds on the left Nerds on the right

Religous fanatics On the air every night

Sayin’ the bible Tells the story

Makes the details Sound real gory

’bout what to do If the geeks over there

Don’t believe in the book We got over here...

 

You can’t run a country By a book of religion

Not by a heap Or a lump or a smidgeon

Of foolish rules Of ancient date

Designed to make You all feel great

While you fold, spindle And mutilate

Those unbelievers From a neighboring state

 

To arms! to arms! Hooray! that’s great

Two legs ain’t bad Unless there’s a crate

They ship the parts To mama in

For souvenirs: two ears (get down!)

Not his, not hers, (but what the hey? )

The good book says: it's gotta be that way!

But their book says: Revenge the crusades...

 

With whips ’n chains ’n hand grenades...

Two arms? two arms? Have another and another

Our God says: There ain’t no other!

Our God says It’s all okay!

Our God says This is the way!

It says in the book:

Burn ’n destroy...

’n repent, ’n redeem ’n revenge, ’n deploy ’n rumble thee forth

To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side

’cause they don’t go for what’s in the book ’n that makes ’em bad...

[Soxy]

You are very intellgent on this subject, how did you become a Buddhist?

It seems the most true and the best fitting with my personal experiences.

 

And thanks, I had to take a lot of religion classes for my school--and I liked it so I kept taking them. I wouldn't say I'm uber knowledgeable--but I can hold my own in my classes.

[cwsox]

as perhaps soxtalk's only memebvr who owns the New Testament in the original koine Greek,

 

the translation "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" is indeed correct and the second one offered was a corrupt translation (corrupt used in a technical sense'"

 

 

A person ignorant of Greek not knowing the Grek use of articles for every noun would translate incorrectly but I am looking at John 1.1 now and I cannot type Greek characters as my keyboard is not set that way but as I traslate it directly now, 'ev arche vn o logos, kai o logos nv pros ton Theon, kai Theos ev o logos." (I have translitertaed directly into Enlish which is a horrid thing to do but no other way to type it out on my keyboard.) "In the beginninng was the Word and the word was with God and God was the Word."

 

The Greek of John is beautiful poetic language so I would look at the next verse "outos ev ev arche pros ton Theon" and looking at the word placement there of "outos" would go back and redo verse 1 so that verses 1 and 2 now read "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

 

 

My transliteration is bad without the roight keyboard. My translation is good. I can assure you there is no reference to "a god" as your friend suggests. In fact the traditional translation (use the New Revised Standard, it is the best current) is correct.

[Texsox]

ChiSoxy,

Do you find in your field, fewer and fewer people who would label themselves religious? I'm not certain if this is a local thing with the Professors here, but there are very few practicing any faith.

[Soxy]

ChiSoxy,

Do you find in your field, fewer and fewer people who would label themselves religious? I'm not certain if this is a local thing with the Professors here, but there are very few practicing any faith.

Texsox, I'm not sure what my field is, but I do find that fewer and fewer people of the liberal persuasion (at least in my age group,21) want to be labeled as religious. The big word now is "spiritual." I think there's some sort of negative connotation that religious means conservative and bad things. I think that's unfair to religion and how radically liberating and positive it can be. Actually I've considered going back to Christianity just to show them what a wonderful, compassionate and liberating message Jesus actually did preach. But in the end I have no desire, at least not yet. I do consider myself religious, and I am really sad that such a beautiful wonderful thing like that has been taken away from so many--by means of intimidation, ignoring their voices, or flat out condemnation.

 

Of my professors a few are pastors, one is a Hindu, one puts on a pretty good atheist act, and my favorite one it's sort of hard to tell. I would say it's probably 60-40.

[southsider2k5]

Texsox, I'm not sure what my field is, but I do find that fewer and fewer people of the liberal persuasion (at least in my age group,21) want to be labeled as religious. The big word now is "spiritual." I think there's some sort of negative connotation that religious means conservative and bad things. I think that's unfair to religion and how radically liberating and positive it can be. Actually I've considered going back to Christianity just to show them what a wonderful, compassionate and liberating message Jesus actually did preach. But in the end I have no desire, at least not yet. I do consider myself religious, and I am really sad that such a beautiful wonderful thing like that has been taken away from so many--by means of intimidation, ignoring their voices, or flat out condemnation.

 

  Of my professors a few are pastors, one is a Hindu, one puts on a pretty good atheist act, and my favorite one it's sort of hard to tell. I would say it's probably 60-40.

What an excellent post. So much truth there. Beautiful.

[Queen Prawn]

Texsox, I'm not sure what my field is, but I do find that fewer and fewer people of the liberal persuasion (at least in my age group,21) want to be labeled as religious. The big word now is "spiritual." I think there's some sort of negative connotation that religious means conservative and bad things.

One possibility (as in my case), is that said person doesn't follow one religion and their practices, but more of a meld of religions and their beliefs. Just a thought.

[Steff]

Jesus is not God, he is the son of God. I would think your translation is right, because you would never see 'a God' in the Bible. There is only one God, that would kind of f*** with that.

All in the personal interpretation, no? If you choose to believe that Jesus is God's son.. so be it, IMO. Expecially where religion is concerned.

 

 

But hey.. some get off on proving others wrong no matter what the topic.

[Steff]

One possibility (as in my case), is that said person doesn't follow one religion and their practices, but more of a meld of religions and their beliefs.  Just a thought.

Makes sense to me Fan..